Friday, July 17, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
D.A. Can’t Compel Mental Examination of Defendant Seeking Mental Health Diversion
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Two defendants in unrelated criminal proceedings, each seeking a mental health diversion, have persuaded Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal that the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office does not have the right, under a discovery statute, to an order compelling a mental examination.
Acting Presiding Justice William Dato authored the opinion, filed yesterday. It grants a petition for a writ of mandate directing the San Diego Superior Court to vacate the respective orders by Judges Steven E. Stone and Selena D. Epley requiring defendants Miguel Sua and Alexander Guthrie to be examined by a prosecution-retained mental health expert.
At issue is an interpretation of Penal Code §1054.3(b)(1) which says, with italics added by Dato:
“Unless otherwise specifically addressed by an existing provision of law, whenever a defendant in a criminal action...places in issue his or her mental state at any phase of the criminal action... through the proposed testimony of any mental health expert, upon timely request by the prosecution, the court may order that the defendant... submit to examination by a prosecution-retained mental health expert.”
The jurist wrote:
“This appeal raises a purely legal question concerning the reach of section 1054.3(b)(1). The parties agree, as do we, that the statute authorizes a trial court to compel a defendant who has signaled an intent to present expert testimony of a mental state defense at trial to submit to a prosecution mental examination. Everyone also agrees that a request for mental health diversion is not decided at a trial….The issue for us to resolve is whether this procedural distinction makes a difference.”
He declared:
“The plain language of this statute, the discovery scheme of which it became a part, and its legislative history establish that an order compelling a mental examination is authorized only when a defendant notices an intent to put on a mental state defense at trial through expert testimony. Because the hearing on a request for mental health diversion is not the defendant’s trial, we will issue the requested peremptory writs of mandate.”
Dato pointed out in a footnote:
“This does not leave the People without any remedy. Although prosecutors responding to requests for mental health diversion cannot compel a defendant’s psychological examination by a prosecution expert under section 1054.3, in the appropriate case they can ask that the trial judge appoint an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.”
The case is Sua v. Superior Court (People), 2026 S.O.S. 2100.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company